Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the transitive borrowing rule ('an act that takes ... from the DSA, which takes it from the AVMSD, counts for the AVMSD'), the fact that the list is uncurated ('Nothing in the list was chosen by hand'), and a warning about count semantics. That exceeds what the annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is nearly all substantive, but it is delivered in dense, nested constructions (the parenthetical chain and the tier gloss) that are hard to scan. The core purpose is technically front-loaded but the sentence runs long before the reader reaches the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still clarifies output semantics that would otherwise be misread (tier meanings, and that reachWorks is a union of populations, not a sum). Combined with annotation-covered safety and a fully documented schema, the definition is close to complete for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with `limit` enumerating allowed values and `jurisdiction` giving an example, so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter beyond echoing that jurisdiction is a reach filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a specific resource ('terms of art') and the exact ranking criterion (how many instruments DEFINE, BORROW, or CITE a defining provision), and it names the sibling to escalate to ('then call concept_family for one of them'). The purpose is clear but buried inside a long, clause-heavy first sentence, so an agent must parse nesting to extract it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use framing is present ('Use it to find the anchoring concepts of an area... then call concept_family for one of them'), plus it explains the discriminating meaning of the `tier` values 'pivotal' vs 'shared'. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it versus other term-oriented siblings like define_term or work_glossary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.